bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| reply to moonpuppy
Re: Oh really?
'Do you really believe they are going to build a whole separate network to carry "paid" traffic? Not likely.'
Well what they're doing isn't too far off. They're going to better manage the data traffic across their network. More efficient and much faster. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Your right, that is exactly what they are going to do. But doing so is impeding the traffic of those that are not paying and that is the problem.
If they leave it alone the technology will work out it's own QoS. It always has and always will without these greedy bastards trying to steal from profitable companies.
Besides, where do you draw the line? Do all companies pay this extortion or only the "profitable ones"? What about the ramification of this on startups or new services being brought to the web? |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | »redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/SG246297.html |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | I have passed the CCNA and work with 6500 and 4000 series switches and other Cisco routers/switches. Nothing in that link (which does not work) changes anything I posted. So what was your point in that? |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| Working link- »www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/SG246297.html
4.6 Summary of QoS, it details what benefits implementation of QoS brings and how it's much better for network architecture. It doesn't harm normal data traffic and helps overall traffic to move more efficiently.
This is something Bell wants to do anyway with their traffic and the idea of charging content providers came secondary. Had they decided against even including content providers in their plans I can only imagine the articles we'd be seeing here. |
|
